Letters: Detrimental use of your broadband connection

[PowerUser]

I've Just received this e-Mail. Which I'm sure some of you may be familiar with.

However!..I'm currently on the 50mb Package, and under virgin media's own policy, I should be exempt

http://shop.virginmedia.com/help/traffic-management/traffic-management-policy.html

Last night I think I managed to hit about 4Gb between 6pm and 11pm. And that's it!.

What are Virgin playing at!.. Is this an oversight or some sick joke. :mad:

I don't get it!..

[Sirius]

I've Just received this e-Mail. Which I'm sure some of you may be familiar with.

However!..I'm currently on the 50mb Package, and under virgin media's own policy, I should be exempt

http://shop.virginmedia.com/help/traffic-management/traffic-management-policy.html

Last night I think I managed to hit about 4Gb between 6pm and 11pm. And that's it!.

What are Virgin playing at!.. Is this an oversight or some sick joke. :mad:

I don't get it!..

I am sure others have posted the same on here about a month or so ago, I seem to remember a post that showed VM had changed the policy

[Kymmy]

Why should you be exempt???

Currently you're exempt from STM but all broadband users have a Acceptable/Fair usage policy on their contract, please don't confuse that with Traffic management

[Ignitionnet]

This detrimental use email is nothing to do with the traffic management policy, they are two separate things.

Just reschedule those BluRay Linux distributions for off-peak periods and they should leave you alone.

[PowerUser]

Hi, Sirius

Thankyou for replying, I've yet to find this revised policy, as you can see the on the link I gave that this is still in affect.. I shall be calling them to find out as well..

---------- Post added at 09:48 ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 ----------

Why should you be exempt???

Currently you're exempt from STM but all broadband users have a Acceptable/Fair usage policy on their contract, please don't confuse that with Traffic management

Why put N/A next to the fair use amount ?

[Ignitionnet]

The email you got stems from http://shop.virginmedia.com/help/acceptable-use.html not http://shop.virginmedia.com/help/traffic-management.html

What activities are prohibited by the Acceptable Use Policy?

<Snip>or to excessively use the network in busy times in a way which has a detrimental impact on other users.

Detrimental usage to this level is rare and only customers in the top 0.1% are likely to breach our AUP in this way.

[Sirius]

Why put N/A to fair use amount ?

Very good point.



Make sure when you phone up you get them to give you the amount that triggered the letter in writing, however i bet you they refuse ;)

[Kymmy]

Why put N/A next to the fair use amount ?

That's not a fair usage amount, as I said you;re getting fair usage mixed up with STM limits... The AUP is built into the contract for all users and is seperate from STM

See Ignitionnet's post about 2 above mine..

[Ignitionnet]

Very good point.



Make sure when you phone up you get them to give you the amount that triggered the letter in writing, however i bet you they refuse ;)

There isn't a fixed amount, it's a variable thing depending on network loading in the area. The policy mentions usage which degrades the service of others in the area.

It's unlikely to be last night's 4GB during peak periods that's the issue, they also seem to measure 9am-9pm.

[Sirius]

There isn't a fixed amount, it's a variable thing depending on network loading in the area. The policy mentions usage which degrades the service of others in the area.

It's unlikely to be last night's 4GB during peak periods that's the issue, they also seem to measure 9am-9pm.

Detrimental usage to this level is rare and only customers in the top 0.1% are likely to breach our AUP in this way.

And when they see it happening you would think they would also look at how 0.1% of users on an area can have that sort of affect on a Next generation network :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong high usage at peak times should be dealt with, However the peak usage times are steadily extending and soon will just be 24 - 7

[PowerUser]

Gave them a call!, very nice chap on the other end..He said my usage has been less then what 10Mb users actually normally use, It was a one off case where it hit nearly 8gb one day last week. so this triggered it off. We both thought it strange though as normally only repeated abuse triggers these letters.

Anyway, he made some notes on my account that I had called and it's all fine, I just need to make sure my dad's not watching HD streaming Porn before 9pm

I don't think it's likely to affect too many people in my area, As most of the wrinklees around here are only just on the telephone, let alone Broadband., So who am I hurting?

[Ignitionnet]

And when they see it happening you would think they would also look at how 0.1% of users on an area can have that sort of affect on a Next generation network :rolleyes:

Careful there it mentions 0.1% of users in total not of a single area, pretty different things and more than one of that 0.1% can be on the same cable.

Due to the architecture of cable a really heavy user or two can affect things quite easily as you well know ;)

Precisely the reason access to this next generation network is so cheap per Mbps is on the assumption of a certain level of usage and that the bandwidth can be shared between a certain amount of modems.

---------- Post added at 10:21 ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 ----------

Gave them a call!, very nice chap on the other end..He said my usage has been less then what 10Mb users actually normally use, It was a one off case where it hit nearly 8gb one day last week. so this triggered it off. We both thought it strange though as normally only repeated abuse triggers these letters.

Anyway, he made some notes on my account that I had called and it's all fine, I just need to make sure my dad's not watching HD streaming Porn before 9pm

I don't think it's likely to affect too many people in my area, As most of the wrinklees around here are only just on the telephone, let alone Broadband., So who am I hurting?

Wouldn't say that's less than what 10Mbps people normally use, a lot of them are in the sub-30GB/month club and you mention using barely 4GB yesterday.

That said that does seem a low level of usage and maybe it's a mistake. If there are speed issues in your area that would explain the eagerness.

[RobboEdin]

Hi, Sirius

Thankyou for replying, I've yet to find this revised policy, as you can see the on the link I gave that this is still in affect.. I shall be calling them to find out as well..

---------- Post added at 09:48 ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 ----------



Why put N/A next to the fair use amount ?

...because the label on the table is WRONG. It is the amount of download that will trigger STM in that table.

As discussed earlier, the amount to trigger the fair usage part of the AUP/FUP is not documented, AFAIK, and is not part of the STM.

[beasty54]

I got a letter today from Virgin Media with exactly the same Title, not overly impressed to be honest since i thought i could download what i want, when i want on the 50mb package and thats exactly why i pay for it :confused:

I'm almost certain this letter was the result of some extremely heavy usage on a single day (20th October) becuase ive been at this address over a year, not changed the way ive downloaded and this is the first time ive had any trouble.

---------- Post added at 16:06 ---------- Previous post was at 15:28 ----------

It was a one off case where it hit nearly 8gb one day last week. so this triggered it off.


How on earth can downloading 8gb on a 50mb connection trigger some sort of warning :confused: I can download 8gb in under 30 mins i think so if thats a problem then what the hell is the point in a 50mb connection???

I download between 300 and 500gb a month and have never had a phone call, email, or letter in the past so i'm quite confused really.

[city-boy]

I received a letter in the post informing me that as I was a heavy user I am in breach of their acceptable use policy. I've been with virgin media since they launched cable modems many years ago, and even though I'll admit I have been downloading a few big downloads recently I usually am quite good.

So of course I wanted to make sure I wasn't breaking the Acceptable Use Policy. I'm more than happy to monitor my downloads and ensure I'm not swamping the network for other users the odd time I do download files. So I called them up to ask how much data I can download a month before I break the acceptable use policy? Is there a certain limit the time of day etc?

Their answer, "we don't know,they won't tell us in the abuse team, we have asked many times but they won't tell us"

So I'm trying to be good and ensure I'm a good customer, but they are not letting me know what is a good customer and what isn't.

Obviously now I'm afraid to download anything scared that I'll be in breach of the AUP next month. I'll happily limit my downloads, times and amount but unless I know what that is I won't be able to comply.

Does anyone know what amount of traffic breaches the AUP policy?

Thanks

[Chris]

I believe it varies from area to area, because the key measure is whether you're having a detrimental impact on other users. If you're in a heavily subscribed area, then it will be less difficult to impact others with your own activity than if you are in a lightly-subscribed area.

Even so, AFAIK your downloading has got to be well into the GB per day before you breach the AUP. You might want to try downloading your Linux distros overnight rather than mid-evening.

[General Maximus]

but this is where it all gets grey and does my head in. I pretty much download probably about 3gb per day on average but there are odd days a couple of times a month where I'll download 80-100gb in one day and I have never had a letter through. I don't think we are too bad where I am for network congestion because i have always been able to get my max speed so i probably don't affect other users as much as I could do, but i think it is unfair that some peeps seeem to get letter for doing nothing.

[Chrysalis]

General maximus this is where we come back to how available capacity per end user varies wildy from area to area. Not only does it affect performance levels but what your AUP limit is.

[city-boy]

Well I can tell you on three occaisions this month I have downloaded 60gb files, other than that probably averaging about 750MB per day.

This all seems a bit unfair.

[Chrysalis]

The email you got stems from http://shop.virginmedia.com/help/acceptable-use.html not http://shop.virginmedia.com/help/traffic-management.html

what happens if the network in your area is busy all the time? there is no time to download without breaching it. :(

---------- Post added at 18:47 ---------- Previous post was at 18:41 ----------


Wouldn't say that's less than what 10Mbps people normally use, a lot of them are in the sub-30GB/month club and you mention using barely 4GB yesterday.

That said that does seem a low level of usage and maybe it's a mistake. If there are speed issues in your area that would explain the eagerness.

interesting, I am thinking that if people get these letters for such low usage as lets face it 4 gig a day on 50mbit is not much. (comparison residental users in sweden can use 10TB month without isp batting an eyelid) Then the area must be pretty oversubscribed and the letters have probably gone out to dozens in an area. We get to the point if VM are having to send out letters to so many people its not the customers who have it wrong its VM on their capacity. I dont care what the average use is, end of the day 4 gig a day is just 3% of max utilisation. 33/1 contention would deal with that and years ago ntl used to have 20/1 contention.

[PowerUser]

I got a letter today from Virgin Media with exactly the same Title, not overly impressed to be honest since i thought i could download what i want, when i want on the 50mb package and thats exactly why i pay for it :confused:

I'm almost certain this letter was the result of some extremely heavy usage on a single day (20th October) becuase ive been at this address over a year, not changed the way ive downloaded and this is the first time ive had any trouble.

---------- Post added at 16:06 ---------- Previous post was at 15:28 ----------



How on earth can downloading 8gb on a 50mb connection trigger some sort of warning :confused: I can download 8gb in under 30 mins i think so if thats a problem then what the hell is the point in a 50mb connection???

I download between 300 and 500gb a month and have never had a phone call, email, or letter in the past so i'm quite confused really.

At the end of the day it's just Bullcrap from virgin media, Moving the goalposts when it suits them,.. when 50mbit was first introduced, they left it alone to attract customers. And before anyone on here starts replying with comments like "But the Fair usage has always been the same" Bullcrap, because you could enjoy it fully, as it was intended, you paid the exrta for the privileges of a higher tier..So in affect now,we ARE BEING TRAFFIC MANAGED. Fair usage policy has been squeezed down alot it seems, and makes it identical to being STM'd.

Why is it that Virgin get the customers, then they start slapping them in the face with restrictions again, like you, I can and have downloaded far more and my usage last year makes this years looks pathetic, yet I heard nothing last year whatsover.

If there network cant handle the load, then they shoudn't be offering such high speeds just to make themselves look the best ISP in the eyes of the public .It's obvious that someone who has a 50Mbit connection is far more likely to download alot more then someone on 10mbit..Purely because of the time it takes..

[Sirius]

Their answer, "we don't know,they won't tell us in the abuse team, we have asked many times but they won't tell us"

So I'm trying to be good and ensure I'm a good customer, but they are not letting me know what is a good customer and what isn't.
Imagine the police sending you an intention to prosecute letter for speeding but they will not tell you how much over the speed limit you were :rolleyes:

[Kymmy]

Threads Merged, Seems that we're gonna have lots of these letters so lets keep discussion about them to one thread please

[ahardie]

I can't help wondering if these letters are really necessary particularly for those on the sub 50 mb tiers where VM already has stm in place. Isn't sending out these letters a step too far. If Sky for instance can have an uncapped service and doesn't send out warning letters to it's customers how does VM hope to compete?

[beasty54]

.

Even so, AFAIK your downloading has got to be well into the GB per day before you breach the AUP. You might want to try downloading your Linux distros overnight rather than mid-evening.

Well into the GB per day, are you kidding me?? When i'm not at work i'm using the internet constantly, streaming, gaming, downloading, browsing and whatever else can be done. I can be well into the GB every 5 minutes and this is EXACTLY why i pay for a 50mb connection. I'm all for some sort of fair usage if its reasonable but Virgin Media have got to decide whats fair and whats not. How the hell are we supposed to be fair when being fair depends what everyone else in your area is doing, its absolutely pathetic

[Sirius]

Well into the GB per day, are you kidding me?? When i'm not at work i'm using the internet constantly, streaming, gaming, downloading, browsing and whatever else can be done. I can be well into the GB every 5 minutes and this is EXACTLY why i pay for a 50mb connection. I'm all for some sort of fair usage if its reasonable but Virgin Media have got to decide whats fair and whats not. How the hell are we supposed to be fair when being fair depends what everyone else in your area is doing, its absolutely patheticPlus how can you play fair if they don't tell you what level they say fair is. ???????

[nomadking]

I would have thought that any alleged problems would be caused by a sustained up/download at maximum speed and not solely linked to the total amount up/downloaded.

[beasty54]

I would have thought that any alleged problems would be caused by a sustained up/download at maximum speed and not solely linked to the total amount up/downloaded.



But what difference does that make? If we aren't allowed to sustain maximum upload or download, when are we supposed to stop? Unfortunately nobody can argue with the fact that you can't stick to rules you know nothing about, its an absolute joke.

[Ignitionnet]

It does seem to be stretching things even further now that application level management is being applied.

Virgin are allowed to advertise their service as being Unlimited while:

1) Reducing customer's speeds in both directions on all tiers bar XXL which is upstream only should they breach the Traffic Management Policy.
2) Shaping P2P and NNTP during peak periods.
3) At their sole discretion writing to customers to demand that they move their usage to offpeak periods.

This does strike me as a service that is unlimited off peak but not so much during peak periods. Now don't get me wrong, any of the measures above in isolation, or even 2) and 3) together is not ideal but I can get it. All 3 together seems to me to be just too much. 3 separate policies to reduce customers' usage so that the company can continue to advertise an unlimited service seems absurd.

They need to drop the word 'unlimited' given all 3 of these now apply. Even BT don't have this much small print on their 'unlimited service', they only have 1) and 2).

I'm not saying their policies are right or wrong, what I am saying is that claiming the services are unlimited is quite misleading now, however this is an issue that regulators have waved through so they can continue to do so at their discretion.

It is somewhat odd that Virgin are happy to preach to other operators about being more open about the speeds they deliver, while they advertise a service as unlimited while telling customers what they can do at line speed (application shaping), when (STM) and how much ('Detrimental Use').

If there is any integrity there, though as this would be marketing's call that's a really stupid statement to make as of course there is not, they would be more honest themselves across the board rather than being honest only when it flatters them.

[ahardie]

It does seem to be stretching things even further now that application level management is being applied.

Virgin are allowed to advertise their service as being Unlimited while:

1) Reducing customer's speeds in both directions on all tiers bar XXL which is upstream only should they breach the Traffic Management Policy.
2) Shaping P2P and NNTP during peak periods.
3) At their sole discretion writing to customers to demand that they move their usage to offpeak periods.

This does strike me as a service that is unlimited off peak but not so much during peak periods. Now don't get me wrong, any of the measures above in isolation, or even 2) and 3) together is not ideal but I can get it. All 3 together seems to me to be just too much. 3 separate policies to reduce customers' usage so that the company can continue to advertise an unlimited service seems absurd.

They need to drop the word 'unlimited' given all 3 of these now apply. Even BT don't have this much small print on their 'unlimited service', they only have 1) and 2).

I'm not saying their policies are right or wrong, what I am saying is that claiming the services are unlimited is quite misleading now, however this is an issue that regulators have waved through so they can continue to do so at their discretion.

It is somewhat odd that Virgin are happy to preach to other operators about being more open about the speeds they deliver, while they advertise a service as unlimited while telling customers what they can do at line speed (application shaping), when (STM) and how much ('Detrimental Use').

If there is any integrity there, though as this would be marketing's call that's a really stupid statement to make as of course there is not, they would be more honest themselves across the board rather than being honest only when it flatters them.

I completely agree Ignitionnet. Having three different means of reducing the strain on their network is absurd. I think they need to seriously reconsider. I say that as someone who only occasionally has stm applied to my connection and I am highly unlikely to ever receive a letter but I just feel this is a step too far.

[peanut]

If this is done by means of pushing those on 50mb onto 100mb at some point or another by saying there is no cap/stm or whatever on 100mb, then they ain't going to get my custom. I went onto 50mb begrudgingly because there was no cap/stm, and if this come into force now, then I think I'll consider going on their lowest tier and going back to downloading overnight.

There is no point in having 50mb if it comes to this, 100mb is just plain stupid and won't be worth the money. The alternative will be to go with sky and BT broadband and this is now something I will consider. They've pushed it too far now.

[Ignitionnet]

IMHO it's still a decent product, I just think it's pretty disingenuous to describe it as unlimited given the plethora of methods employed to reduce usage at peak times.

[peanut]

IMHO it's still a decent product, I just think it's pretty disingenuous to describe it as unlimited given the plethora of methods employed to reduce usage at peak times.

Describing it is one thing, but no matter how good it is it comes down to what's the point in having it if you can't use it.

[Chrysalis]

It does seem to be stretching things even further now that application level management is being applied.

Virgin are allowed to advertise their service as being Unlimited while:

1) Reducing customer's speeds in both directions on all tiers bar XXL which is upstream only should they breach the Traffic Management Policy.
2) Shaping P2P and NNTP during peak periods.
3) At their sole discretion writing to customers to demand that they move their usage to offpeak periods.

This does strike me as a service that is unlimited off peak but not so much during peak periods. Now don't get me wrong, any of the measures above in isolation, or even 2) and 3) together is not ideal but I can get it. All 3 together seems to me to be just too much. 3 separate policies to reduce customers' usage so that the company can continue to advertise an unlimited service seems absurd.

They need to drop the word 'unlimited' given all 3 of these now apply. Even BT don't have this much small print on their 'unlimited service', they only have 1) and 2).

I'm not saying their policies are right or wrong, what I am saying is that claiming the services are unlimited is quite misleading now, however this is an issue that regulators have waved through so they can continue to do so at their discretion.

It is somewhat odd that Virgin are happy to preach to other operators about being more open about the speeds they deliver, while they advertise a service as unlimited while telling customers what they can do at line speed (application shaping), when (STM) and how much ('Detrimental Use').

If there is any integrity there, though as this would be marketing's call that's a really stupid statement to make as of course there is not, they would be more honest themselves across the board rather than being honest only when it flatters them.

BT's number 1 is also much more flexible and soft, it goes on monthly usage rather than daily usage.

I can see both sides here, obviously its easier for adsl providers to manage capacity as most of their customers sync at low speeds anyway, BT will have a tougher time now with capacity now FTTC is been rolled out.

I agree tho, they have pushed this too far and it shows how soft the ASA and ofcom are.

What makes this even more worse is even tho they have 3 measures in place to reduce usage they still cant get on top of congestion.

[PowerUser]

I think I'll consider going on their lowest tier and going back to downloading overnight.

There is no point in having 50mb if it comes to this, 100mb is just plain stupid and won't be worth the money. The alternative will be to go with sky and BT broadband and this is now something I will consider. They've pushed it too far now.

I was just seriously thinking the same, since this disgrace with the letter. Virgin Media may find it strange but I actually need to sleep between the hours of 9pm to 9am.

So downloading and watching my favourite shows in HD during the day isn't allowed any more!.. So this makes 50mbit useless..
I may as well leave it downloading overnight on the lowest tier possible..
What a completely pointless service Virgin are now offering..

I'm going to look into BT's Fibreoptic infinity 40Mbit service for just £27.99 per month. As £38 per month on a very restricted service is awful.

[ahardie]

IMHO it's still a decent product, I just think it's pretty disingenuous to describe it as unlimited given the plethora of methods employed to reduce usage at peak times.

I also think it is a good product. I don't actually have too much of a problem with them calling it unlimited when other providers call their products up to 20 meg knowing that only a small minority get anything approaching that speed. My gripe is that if they apply stm and now shaping to their product they shouldn't need to also send out letters to customers asking them to download less. If I were in the market for an isp today I think I would look at Virgins policies, all three of them, and then look elsewhere.Which is a shame because like you say it is a good product.

[Kymmy]

Come to think of it why did the traffic the other morning go at 30mph in a congested zone when the speed limit is 50Mph, I demand that I get my 50mph!!!!!

:rolleyes: :rofl: :banghead: :rolleyes: :rofl: :banghead:

Yes we may pay for "UPTO" 10/20/50Mb but that is the maximum speed, but as with a road you go to the conditions unless you get warned..

[Hugh]

FYI, the Infinity 40Mb/s service (Unlimited Broadband and Calls option) also has a FUP (http://bt.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/10495/c/346)

Broadband package Monthly usage allowance
BT Total Broadband Option 1 10GB
BT Total Broadband Option 2 40GB
BT Total Broadband Option 3 Unlimited*
BT Infinity Option 1 40GB
BT Infinity Option 2 Unlimited*

* Subject to Network Management
B. Network Management

4. What is BT's Traffic Management Policy?

BT continuously monitors network performance and reduces the speed available to very heavy users (typically less than 1 per cent of all customers) during a given month to ensure that the service received by other customers is not impacted through extremely heavy usage by a minority of people.

Customers who are classified as very heavy users will experience significantly reduced speed at peak times (typically 5pm-midnight every day but these times may change depending on the demand on the network) for a period of 30 days, or for as long as very heavy use continues. This applies to customers on all Options.

BT Total Broadband Option 3 and BT Infinity Option 2 allow unlimited downloads and uploads within the monthly rental price, so customers on these products will not be charged for over-use. However, this does not preclude BT from reducing your speed if you are a heavy user in order to protect the experience for the rest of our customers.
We may need to vary the policy from time to time to ensure the best possible experience for all our customers. This site will always be kept up to date with the latest information.

5. What is BT's policy on Peer-to-Peer (P2P) applications?
P2P refers to certain applications that enable files and program sharing between groups of people logged on to a P2P network. Because they use uploads and downloads and are often left running 24/7, they consume significant bandwidth, even when being used by just a small number of customers.

Because a lot of P2P traffic is not time-critical, e.g., downloading and uploading TV programmes or movies for later viewing, we treat P2P traffic differently from time-critical traffic (such as surfing, streaming or internet telephony) and apply speed restrictions to all P2P traffic. We manage these restrictions daily based on the demands on the network, but downstream restrictions will typically be in place 4pm - midnight on weekdays and 9am - midnight on the weekend. Upstream restrictions may be in place at other times.

You can, of course, still use P2P services, but downloads will take longer during the peak times.

[PowerUser]

Come to think of it why did the traffic the other morning go at 30mph in a congested zone when the speed limit is 50Mph, I demand that I get my 50mph!!!!!

:rolleyes: :rofl: :banghead: :rolleyes: :rofl: :banghead:

Yes we may pay for "UPTO" 10/20/50Mb but that is the maximum speed, but as with a road you go to the conditions unless you get warned..

Because the government are Aholes and don't recognise or care that it gets conjested. They would rather spend your road tax on other countries then build better roads..

How about this :

Virgin are launching a 100Mbit superfast service.. But because of the conjestion on the network it's only up to 100Mbit more like 60-70Mbit according to the
trials that didn't go too well.. So What's the point!.

[Hugh]

You will find (as posted previously in this thread) that all ISPs have Fair Use Policies.

[Kymmy]

@Poweruser

You are assuming that the available contention ration is 1:1 and that everyone has a right to 100% of the speed 100% of the time..

If you seriously think you should have that then go get a leased line which doesn't have a possible maximum speed instead it has a constant speed.

If though you keep insisting on 50Mb 100% of the time then all I can do is sit back and watch you get more and more disappointed

[BenMcr]

But because of the conjestion on the network it's only up to 100Mbit more like 60-70Mbit according to the
trials that didn't go too well.. So What's the point!.And you know that how?

[Ignitionnet]

Virgin are launching a 100Mbit superfast service.. But because of the conjestion on the network it's only up to 100Mbit more like 60-70Mbit according to the trials that didn't go too well.. So What's the point!.

As speeds go up some loss of speeds at peak periods must be expected.

Other points regarding the service being possibly missold were fair enough, expecting full speeds all the time on 100Mbps costing 50p / Mbit/s is entirely unrealistic though.

---------- Post added at 11:27 ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 ----------

FYI, the Infinity 40Mb/s service (Unlimited Broadband and Calls option) also has a FUP (http://bt.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/10495/c/346)

Indeed it does, doesn't justify Virgin doing everything BT do and on top of it writing to people they consider to have misused the network as well though.

All ISPs have FUPs, etc, which is why most don't advertise unlimited anymore. Virgin have the most restricted 'unlimited' service of any major ISP now. Not something to be proud of.

[Kymmy]

A letter though is just a letter of possible intent.. If they'd taken action then yes this thread would be valid, but at this moment in time it is just probably a cheap way of reducing network traffic ;)

[PowerUser]

And you know that how?

Pop over to the official virgin media forums, there's a few posts/comments on there from people who have been on the trials.

[BenMcr]

Pop over to the official virgin media forums, there's a few posts/comments on there from people who have been on the trials.Still not sure how you know that is down to the network

Could be quite easily down the it being run over the D-Link for Wireless when they shouldn't be doing, or that they haven't got a Gbit ethernet card, or other factors

[PowerUser]

@Poweruser

You are assuming that the available contention ration is 1:1 and that everyone has a right to 100% of the speed 100% of the time..

If you seriously think you should have that then go get a leased line which doesn't have a possible maximum speed instead it has a constant speed.

If though you keep insisting on 50Mb 100% of the time then all I can do is sit back and watch you get more and more disappointed

I can get 50Mbit 100% of the time, But I'm not allowed do that for long!. 10-30mins per day!. according to virgin's Fair usage!

That's my point!. That's all!.

[Sirius]

A letter though is just a letter of possible intent.. If they'd taken action then yes this thread would be valid, but at this moment in time it is just probably a cheap way of reducing network traffic ;)

Bear with me on this :)

Could it be they have NEVER disconnected anyone who has had a letter because they know that if someone then made a legal challenge they would have to admit what the limit is they have set, Correct me if i am wrong but they have never told anyone what that limit is that the person has exceeded.

You could imagine it in front of the judge,

Judge, So why did you cancel the users contract

VM, Because he used to much bandwidth

Judge, so what was the amount he used

VM, we are not allowed to say


Judge, so you disconnected them because they exceeded your limit but you did not tell them what the limit is

VM, That's right

Judge, i find on the side of the customer, pay him lots of compensation :)


VM need to tell people what they have done wrong and give them the limit they have exceeded, how can the customer ensure that he does not exceed the limit again if he does not now the limit ?????

[Kymmy]

@ poweruser

You're reading one thing then answering something totally different..

I never said you could get 50Mb all the time, what I said is that you shouldn't expect 50Mb all the time as it's simply not what you pay for ;) This isn't a world of infinite bandwidth but a finite resource that for residential customers currently doesn't match the maximum possible throughput..

Which would you rather have..everyone trying to download all the time and then you'd have maybe 10Mb max or the capability of hitting 50Mb regularly when it's not busy?

@Sirius

That would be interesting if it ever happened, but as currently Ofcom (or whatever BB watchdog there is atm) tends to be the buffer between the customers and the ISPs regarding such issues I'm not sure it will hapen in the near future

[Sirius]

@Sirius

That would be interesting if it ever happened, but as currently Ofcom (or whatever BB watchdog there is atm) tends to be the buffer between the customers and the ISPs regarding such issues I'm not sure it will hapen in the near future

And that's why people are so annoyed about this, I know we need to control usage at peak times. However i get very annoyed just like others when i am told i have been exceeding there limit but the person on the end of the phone WILL NOT tell me at what point i exceeded there limit. My answer was

"when you are willing to tell me i will be willing to limit my usage".

YES i have had a letter in the past

[Chrysalis]

Indeed it does, doesn't justify Virgin doing everything BT do and on top of it writing to people they consider to have misused the network as well though.

All ISPs have FUPs, etc, which is why most don't advertise unlimited anymore. Virgin have the most restricted 'unlimited' service of any major ISP now. Not something to be proud of.

Ignition you dont think also a problem they got these 3 restrictions and congestion is still heavy in high take up areas? 3 methods that are proving ineffective. To me says a lot about how high they provision capacity. This morning at 4am I got 14mbit out of 20mbit.

---------- Post added at 12:16 ---------- Previous post was at 12:15 ----------

@ poweruser

You're reading one thing then answering something totally different..

I never said you could get 50Mb all the time, what I said is that you shouldn't expect 50Mb all the time as it's simply not what you pay for ;) This isn't a world of infinite bandwidth but a finite resource that for residential customers currently doesn't match the maximum possible throughput..

Which would you rather have..everyone trying to download all the time and then you'd have maybe 10Mb max or the capability of hitting 50Mb regularly when it's not busy?

@Sirius

That would be interesting if it ever happened, but as currently Ofcom (or whatever BB watchdog there is atm) tends to be the buffer between the customers and the ISPs regarding such issues I'm not sure it will hapen in the near future

kymmy what aboout having these restrictions AND unable to hit 50mbit? how would you feel.

[PowerUser]

@ poweruser

You're reading one thing then answering something totally different..

I never said you could get 50Mb all the time, what I said is that you shouldn't expect 50Mb all the time as it's simply not what you pay for ;) This isn't a world of infinite bandwidth but a finite resource that for residential customers currently doesn't match the maximum possible throughput..

Which would you rather have..everyone trying to download all the time and then you'd have maybe 10Mb max or the capability of hitting 50Mb regularly when it's not busy?


It sounds crazy but maybe virgin and other cable ISP's should have made sure that the infrastructure could cope with say 75% of customers downloading constantly with 10Mbit,
before moving onto 20mbit then 50Mbit, before realising the higher speed tiers wouldn't be sustainable.

Then maybe we woudn't be facing these STM and fair usage poilcy's that have gone mad..

[Ignitionnet]

It sounds crazy but maybe virgin and other cable ISP's should have made sure that the infrastructure could cope with say 75% of customers downloading constantly with 10Mbit,
before moving onto 20mbit then 50Mbit, before realising the higher speed tiers wouldn't be sustainable.

It does sound crazy, if allocating each of us 75% of our peak bandwidth were needed we'd mostly be on 128kbit/s still, maybe 2Mbit/s the top tier.

As it is most of the time people run just fine being guaranteed 2-3% of peak bandwidth and certainly no more than 5%.

[PowerUser]

It does sound crazy, if allocating each of us 75% of our peak bandwidth were needed we'd mostly be on 128kbit/s still, maybe 2Mbit/s the top tier.

As it is most of the time people run just fine being guaranteed 2-3% of peak bandwidth and certainly no more than 5%.

I'll guess we'll never know!..What could have been.

[Chrysalis]

It does sound crazy, if allocating each of us 75% of our peak bandwidth were needed we'd mostly be on 128kbit/s still, maybe 2Mbit/s the top tier.

As it is most of the time people run just fine being guaranteed 2-3% of peak bandwidth and certainly no more than 5%.

do you have proof of the fact, since you do mention it a lot.

also most isnt good enough, why not all?

my original question is still here.

why do we still have heavy congestion that includes off peak when VM have employed 3 methods to reduce usage?

[Ignitionnet]

do you have proof of the fact, since you do mention it a lot.

Yes, go find a uBR, check the amount of customers on it and what tiers they are on, from this you can find out how much bandwidth has been sold relative to how much is provisioned. You're talking 30:1 or more.

Glad you agree it's a fact.

---------- Post added at 14:21 ---------- Previous post was at 14:15 ----------

my original question is still here.

why do we still have heavy congestion that includes off peak when VM have employed 3 methods to reduce usage?

You mean why do you still have heavy congestion that includes off peak of course, as it's absurd to suggest that everyone does.

The shaping is downstream only and hasn't finished being rolled out making it futile for the main problem at the moment, upstream congestion and, imho, the Detrimental Use thing is a waste of time and largely ineffective.

Anyway that wasn't really the topic here, I appreciate your congestion issues are frustrating but you are in the minority and posting about congestion at every conceivable opportunity won't help.

[Hugh]

I'll guess we'll never know!..What could have been.
We do know - buy business broadband (which I do in my real life), and you will see the difference in cost for uncontended symmetrical bandwidth (we have a couple of 100Mb inter-site links from VM Business, and they aren't cheap ;)).

[Ignitionnet]

also most isnt good enough, why not all?

Because it's unfair to take money from other customers to subsidise areas which are heavily utilised. Where they are genuinely oversubscribed and operating outside of planning they should certainly be upgraded but where the usage is just heavy per modem and the area will never make money as it's getting hammered by a relative minority it's a difficult case to make throwing endless bandwidth at it.

Virgin are a pile high, sell cheap, average quality, best effort, unguaranteed, mass market service which is highly regionalised in terms of capacity restraints and upgrade requirements. The sooner people get their heads around this fact the less disappointing things will be. Cable companies around the world have poor areas which they basically upgrade to the same level as the rest of the network and if that isn't good enough, well, tough.

Yes the real world where companies have to charge not much due to people's unwillingness to pay and need to make money rather than throwing it at customers not paying much to give them leased-line like performance isn't a nice one.

[Chrysalis]

Yes, go find a uBR, check the amount of customers on it and what tiers they are on, from this you can find out how much bandwidth has been sold relative to how much is provisioned. You're talking 30:1 or more.

Glad you agree it's a fact.

---------- Post added at 14:21 ---------- Previous post was at 14:15 ----------



You mean why do you still have heavy congestion that includes off peak of course, as it's absurd to suggest that everyone does.

The shaping is downstream only and hasn't finished being rolled out making it futile for the main problem at the moment, upstream congestion and, imho, the Detrimental Use thing is a waste of time and largely ineffective.

Anyway that wasn't really the topic here, I appreciate your congestion issues are frustrating but you are in the minority and posting about congestion at every conceivable opportunity won't help.

likewise its absurb to think I am some sort of anomaly and the only customer who has congestion.

it is a fact that cannot be disputed that various high takeup areas have siginficant congestion. it is on topic because supposedbly these letters are to stop the situation that me and other customers find ourselves in, they are clearly not.

I have evidence that at least 16 ports in leicestershire alone are over subscribed, this data was not too diffilcult to collect either, if we assume 400 users per port average thats a lot of people and just in one city. Source of data for this is getting the port data from all customers on the VM support forums who pasted their traceroutes and had it confirmed by VM staff as high utilisation. I only went back 6 months to collect this data, there is more.

So lets look at some more facts.

at 4 different addresses I have used virgin media services in the past 8 years I have had congestion every time. I must be very unlucky if its a rare problem.
a big % of people in inner city high take up areas have over subscription issues. Just as you say only a small % actually complain about it giving you the perception it is only a minority problem.
virgin media disregard many congestion complaints saying the port is below utilisation thresholds to approve action, in other words data collected from virgin media on the severity is not credible. so I hope thats not your source. My source for this is their own support forums, they will acknowledge high utilisation on the ubr but then tell the customer in the same sentence that it is below high thresholds set by themselves to action a fix.
At 6 other addresses at places I have been at with virgin media whether it be friends or family, 5 of the 6 have congestion and no they not all in leicester. again I guess I must be really unlucky?

The areas with perfect performance I will say again as I said in the past I suggest are actually what VM consider 'under' utilised, meaning not filled up with customers and as such have a artifically low contention ratio. Sort of like an isp buying a gigabit pipe in advance planning to put 100000 customers on it and only managing to sign up 10 customers so the customers would then get great performance. (like how O2 was well performing in its early days on ipstream)

minority or not, it is more than 0%, just 1% is enough to show the policies dont work.

[Ignitionnet]

There aren't 400 customers on each upstream port, and can I point out to you that the high utilisation cases noted on the forums where a direction was mentioned were upstream, the ones I've seen anyway.

You talk about high takeup areas as if Virgin don't know where these are and don't upgrade accordingly - they do. The planning guidelines are based around number of active modems on each port not on how many homes are passed.

I question VM's policies in some ways however you need to start differentiating between high takeup and high usage areas. High takeup areas get upgraded accordingly, high usage areas not so much.

I have no doubt there are a number of areas with visible contention. This isn't unreasonable so long as it's not to extremes.

Reckon you can now let these guys discuss the detrimental use issues instead of your experiences with congestion on the network, which I can assure you with total confidence are not typical? This both from the point of view of having worked for the cable company and having been a customer in 4 different areas seeing visible contention in one of them which was occasionally a bit heavy.

In an ideal world congestion wouldn't happen. The world isn't ideal.

Just spoke with a guy actually in Singapore, he informed me he pays 60GBP/month for 100Mbit, which goes as low as 30-40Mbit at peak. People would be screaming their lungs out paying that in the UK and not getting 100Mbit 24x7. Those very few who would pay it of course.

[Chrysalis]

the problem is, it is to extremes, unable to get full speed off peak and getting sub 25% at peak is extreme.

again this is relevant to the topic as well as it seems to be the case if in a high utilised area then the letters will be sent out for reduced usage at lower levels. A customer using just 3% of their own capacity getting a letter to me shouts out either (a) a too agressive policy or (b) desperation due to over selling, unusually high usage (As you suggest it is) still makes it overselling as VM are selling a product which invites high usage.

what part of the problem here is and is why people will complain is the congestion isnt shared universally across the user base, obviously people will be upset if they get 5mbit on peak but someone elsewhere on the same isp gets full speed on peak. effectively a different service sold to 2 different customers. this thread is evident of this problem in that one person can download 100s of gigs and no letter and another gets one for just 120gig usage.

if VM refuse to buy extra capacity to fix problem areas, then this is what they need to do to fix both this AUP letter issue and congestion.

scrap unlimited and price a peak usage allowance that can be sustained in ALL 100% of areas, and then put that as the spec of the product. Just keep off peak as unlimited. STM should also be scrapped in all reality, if the area is congested enough then STM is ABOVE the possible throughput so has NO affect.

[Ignitionnet]

3% is about what each customer on the overlay network is allocated as a guide, and this is far better than most ADSL.

Congestion can't be shared universally, that's just how it works. It's not totally fair that we aren't all having upstreams upgraded however that's life.

VM build capacity, they buy the components. Nonetheless if the new capacity will both cost a lot of money and time and almost immediately be used what's the point?

I'll go along with you on the scrapping unlimited part, not going to happen though the marketing people like that one far too much.

[Chrysalis]

indeed, what we need is someone to take an isp to court and win, will rip an earthquake through the market and then the legal side of isp's will overule marketing. A judge wont fall to the sillyness that 3% can be counted as unlimited simply because its above average usage.

I have no sympathy for VM (and any isp in this situation) on upgrade costs, they sell a product that invites heavy usage, why do they pretend they dont expect it when it happens.

[Ignitionnet]

indeed, what we need is someone to take an isp to court and win, will rip an earthquake through the market and then the legal side of isp's will overule marketing. A judge wont fall to the sillyness that 3% can be counted as unlimited simply because its above average usage.

I have no sympathy for VM (and any isp in this situation) on upgrade costs, they sell a product that invites heavy usage, why do they pretend they dont expect it when it happens.

No-one will be able to do this. I'm unsure what you think the 'legal side' of an ISP is however I do not think it's any different from any other product. It's sold with terms and conditions attached and so long as the ISP is merely enforcing these conditions there is nothing to say.

It's not about the judge falling for silliness they obey and interpret the law. Whether you think 3% of maximum is acceptable or not isn't the issue, these letters are quite cautiously done in that they ask people to move usage outside of peak periods rather than stopping altogether.

They do expect it, they also hope that there is enough light usage to offset it. It's when there isn't that things go wrong.

[Chrysalis]

I didnt say VM are alone on this, I know other isps play the same game and they all wrong. They have never been challenged on it legally tho hence them still getting away with it.

Trading standards say they are breaking the law, that was their legal view given to me.

[Ignitionnet]

I didnt say VM are alone on this, I know other isps play the same game and they all wrong. They have never been challenged on it legally tho hence them still getting away with it.

Trading standards say they are breaking the law, that was their legal view given to me.

So why didn't they pursue it? That is what Trading Standards do isn't it?

[Chrysalis]

So why didn't they pursue it? That is what Trading Standards do isn't it?

No idea, they offered to back me in court, but I havent had a letter or anything so I have nothing personal to persue.

[Wild Oscar]

I just got one of these 'Detrimental use .. etc ..' emails myself .. which was a surprise!

First one ever in all my years of being with VM too .. and I'm only one month into 50M!

[Chrysalis]

anyone who has a letter I suggest you contact trading standards.

[beasty54]

anyone who has a letter I suggest you contact trading standards.

Whats the point at this stage? Although i found it to be a pointless letter it was only a friendly request at this point. If i receive another letter warning me about a possible service termination AND they still refuse to tell me EXACTLY what i'm doing wrong, then i'll get in touch with trading standards.

[Kymmy]

Even if they started restricting people surely the FUP/AUP is covered by the contract and as with any ISP that already restricts I doubt if there's much TS could do..

---------- Post added at 13:57 ---------- Previous post was at 13:56 ----------

I wonder if VM realise that they could sell a top notch service with no FUP/AUP/STM and that people would buy it at a premium..

Mind you VMB already does it (though they do have a AUP I don't think anyone has ever had a warning)

[BenMcr]

I wonder if VM realise that they could sell a top notch service with no FUP/AUP/STM and that people would buy it at a premium..Trouble with that though I don't think it would be possible to mix the two different options would it? Not without installing quite a lot of extra kit in the residential areas, otherwise as the network is shared you still have the detrimental use issue for others, but the person with the 'no restrictions' product would be completely within their right to hammer the connection 24/7

[Kymmy]

Why?? VMB connection I use with no STM runs through the same UBR as the residential

[Ignitionnet]

I wonder if VM realise that they could sell a top notch service with no FUP/AUP/STM and that people would buy it at a premium..

Sadly not many and the pain they'd inflict on the network would quickly make their usage unviable even at the higher price point.

How many people are on the business product because they wanted a premium service and were prepared to pay more? Not many. People complained about the original price of the 50M and its' install fee. They'd be up in arms about being asked to pay more for service without limits. You'd get internet campaigns and people threatening legal action, accusing Virgin of being blackmailers, etc, etc.

[vmfriend]

indeed, what we need is someone to take an isp to court and win, will rip an earthquake through the market and then the legal side of isp's will overule marketing. A judge wont fall to the sillyness that 3% can be counted as unlimited simply because its above average usage.

I have no sympathy for VM (and any isp in this situation) on upgrade costs, they sell a product that invites heavy usage, why do they pretend they dont expect it when it happens.

If they were taken to court and the ruling went against VM or any other ISP, the price of the services themselves would increase quite substantially in my view.

At the moment there is a status quo, there is only so much capacity that can be offered at a price that is acceptable AND allows said ISP to generate an income, so terms and conditions state that their has to be some fair use.

AFAIK the ISP's are clear about this and everyone agrees to them when they sign up.

[Chrysalis]

Sadly not many and the pain they'd inflict on the network would quickly make their usage unviable even at the higher price point.

How many people are on the business product because they wanted a premium service and were prepared to pay more? Not many. People complained about the original price of the 50M and its' install fee. They'd be up in arms about being asked to pay more for service without limits. You'd get internet campaigns and people threatening legal action, accusing Virgin of being blackmailers, etc, etc.

you assume a lot.

I would pay for a service with garuantueed performance levels, no STM, no shaping. It wont increase my usage tho, and I easily use less than 100 gig month, last 3 months I have used less than 30gig.

---------- Post added at 19:07 ---------- Previous post was at 19:04 ----------

If they were taken to court and the ruling went against VM or any other ISP, the price of the services themselves would increase quite substantially in my view.

At the moment there is a status quo, there is only so much capacity that can be offered at a price that is acceptable AND allows said ISP to generate an income, so terms and conditions state that their has to be some fair use.

AFAIK the ISP's are clear about this and everyone agrees to them when they sign up.

I signed up it doesnt mean I agree is right, I agreed to them as there is no alternative to not to.

Prices would of course rise for 'unlimited' services but there would be alternative limited low price products launched for the budget market.

[vmfriend]

I guess the point is there wouldn't be any benefit to VM or any other ISP offering a truly unlimited service because the majority of people dont need or want to pay for it.

As it is they can offer a variety of speeds at different price points and make a profit/keep the business viable.

I suspect you would also need to have separate systems because the 'unlimited' service could impact on the 'limited' cheaper product. (i am by no means a techie so this could be wrong)

I can't imagine there ever being an unlimited service in the short term to be honest, having said that I can remember moving from dial up to broadband, there is always progress so I suppose as technology progresses truly unlimited services could become a reality.

When you look back it is actually quite impressive at how broadband speeds have improved in recent years.

[Ignitionnet]

you assume a lot.

I would pay for a service with garuantueed performance levels, no STM, no shaping. It wont increase my usage tho, and I easily use less than 100 gig month, last 3 months I have used less than 30gig.

I didn't assume anything. What you pay for isn't the issue, you're hardly the average user any more than I would be. The average user is the millions on 10Mbit on Virgin, on TalkTalk and Sky's free services.

The top 10 ISPs by subscriber (http://www.ispreview.co.uk/review/top10.php) are hardly an indication that a significant number of people would pay more.

If of course you have any kind of evidence to support your claim that I'm assuming the overwhelming majority of users in the UK are cheap and pay as little as possible it'd be good to see as I always like to corrected if I'm wrong.

[beasty54]

If they were taken to court and the ruling went against VM or any other ISP, the price of the services themselves would increase quite substantially in my view.

At the moment there is a status quo, there is only so much capacity that can be offered at a price that is acceptable AND allows said ISP to generate an income, so terms and conditions state that their has to be some fair use.

AFAIK the ISP's are clear about this and everyone agrees to them when they sign up.

This is not clear

to excessively use the network in busy times in a way which has a detrimental impact on other users.

The above statement is what most people have a problem with, how is it physically possible for anyone to know the current load in thier area? I have absolutely no idea how my usage is affecting others so after 2 years with no letters i assume they way i use my connection is ok. I still pay the same money each month, and nothing as far as i'm aware has changed in my contract so why should i suddenly have to start changing the way i use my connection? Unfortunately i have no plans to limit the way i use my connection because as far as i'm concerned i'm far from being a selfish user and once i can get 100/10 the connection will be used for a much shorter amount of time each day.

[Chrysalis]

I didn't assume anything. What you pay for isn't the issue, you're hardly the average user any more than I would be. The average user is the millions on 10Mbit on Virgin, on TalkTalk and Sky's free services.

The top 10 ISPs by subscriber (http://www.ispreview.co.uk/review/top10.php) are hardly an indication that a significant number of people would pay more.

If of course you have any kind of evidence to support your claim that I'm assuming the overwhelming majority of users in the UK are cheap and pay as little as possible it'd be good to see as I always like to corrected if I'm wrong.

here is my problem, there isnt evidence the other way round either. Isp's simply wont try it. Except the small isp's who have no advertising budgets. An assumption is made simply because people buy what exists that there is no demand outside of cheap unlimited packages.

[pip08456]

This is not clear

to excessively use the network in busy times in a way which has a detrimental impact on other users.

The above statement is what most people have a problem with, how is it physically possible for anyone to know the current load in thier area? I have absolutely no idea how my usage is affecting others so after 2 years with no letters i assume they way i use my connection is ok. I still pay the same money each month, and nothing as far as i'm aware has changed in my contract so why should i suddenly have to start changing the way i use my connection? Unfortunately i have no plans to limit the way i use my connection because as far as i'm concerned i'm far from being a selfish user and once i can get 100/10 the connection will be used for a much shorter amount of time each day.

The biggest problem is, as you say, people do not know the load on the area, however that is why the sentence you quoted is there.

Assuming that your use for the past 2 years is OK and you will carry on is a bit disingenuous.

To base your usage on the past 2 years as OK would neccessarily mean that the internet and it's usage has not evolved and customers habits are exactly the same as they were 2 years ago. Your's may be but that doesn't mean everyone in your areas is.

That said it does not give VM nor any other ISP a get out as they could've seen the increase in demand but due to financial restraints thay may not have been able to invest as much as they wanted considering the economic downturn that has recently happened.

The upgrades that VM are undertaking ATM represent a big investment and should improve matters greatly. How much remains to be seen.

[beasty54]

The biggest problem is, as you say, people do not know the load on the area, however that is why the sentence you quoted is there.

Assuming that your use for the past 2 years is OK and you will carry on is a bit disingenuous.

To base your usage on the past 2 years as OK would neccessarily mean that the internet and it's usage has not evolved and customers habits are exactly the same as they were 2 years ago. Your's may be but that doesn't mean everyone in your areas is.

That said it does not give VM nor any other ISP a get out as they could've seen the increase in demand but due to financial restraints thay may not have been able to invest as much as they wanted considering the economic downturn that has recently happened.

The upgrades that VM are undertaking ATM represent a big investment and should improve matters greatly. How much remains to be seen.

Of course, i understand that some peoples habbits will have changed but thats not a reason for virgin media to suddenly start sending me letters, especially letters that say they have noticed an increase in traffic on my connection, its a complete lie because nothing has changed on my connection since i moved into this property over 1 year ago. If theres a higher load in my area then they either need to increase capacity or simply give an exact figure of what we can ant cant download during peak hours, at least then i'd know whats available and be able to prioritize.

[pip08456]

As you haven't had a letter how can you state what would be in it?

[Ignitionnet]

here is my problem, there isnt evidence the other way round either. Isp's simply wont try it. Except the small isp's who have no advertising budgets. An assumption is made simply because people buy what exists that there is no demand outside of cheap unlimited packages.

Be are hardly a small ISP with no advertising budget, they plaster cities even now, advertising in the Metro, on the tube, buses, national papers, yet prior to O2's product release they had less than 50k customers. Even now the split is about 90:10 O2:Be.

The majority of customers take Virgin Media's 10Mbit/s package. The 20Mbit only really increased in take up with the VIP pack's bundling. Only a tiny minority of customers purchase the until recently uncapped / un-STM'd 50Mbit.

So yes, there is copious evidence.

[Chrysalis]

Be are hardly a small ISP with no advertising budget, they plaster cities even now, advertising in the Metro, on the tube, buses, national papers, yet prior to O2's product release they had less than 50k customers. Even now the split is about 90:10 O2:Be.

The majority of customers take Virgin Media's 10Mbit/s package. The 20Mbit only really increased in take up with the VIP pack's bundling. Only a tiny minority of customers purchase the until recently uncapped / un-STM'd 50Mbit.

So yes, there is copious evidence.

question have VM tried it yes or no?
has any major isp tried it yes or no?

50k customers is not irrelevant. its proof there is demand for such a thing. BE of course limited by LLU footprint only, lack of tv advertising and lack of brand awareness. Not a major isp. A good comparison would have been if O2 had the BE packages under its own brand and with ipstream availability. In addition O2 got most of its customers in fact just about all of them when O2 had a equal quality LLU product with no shaping/congestion.

If I launched a new product tommorow 100mbit up and down 1:1 contention ratio for £10 a month but had no tv advertising, and used a new unknown brand name I expect I wouldnt even hit 100k customers after 3 years.

[Ignitionnet]

question have VM tried it yes or no?
has any major isp tried it yes or no?

You did note the Samuel L Jackson 'Mother of all broadband' adverts Virgin ran? I'd say television advertising of 50Mbit from a major Hollywood star along with all the coverage as the fastest broadband in the UK is pretty conclusive. The 50Mbps sold virtually nothing until the price was dropped. Even now its' pretty small as a % of customer base - we'll get exact numbers later.
50k customers is not irrelevant. its proof there is demand for such a thing. BE of course limited by LLU footprint only, lack of tv advertising and lack of brand awareness. Not a major isp. A good comparison would have been if O2 had the BE packages under its own brand and with ipstream availability. In addition O2 got most of its customers in fact just about all of them when O2 had a equal quality LLU product with no shaping/congestion.

Be advertised like lunatics in London and managed less than 40k customers here before O2 Broadband existed. Their LLU coverage within London was virtually 100%. Be has always been the higher quality version of O2 - the speeds advertised at the peak end are higher and it is marketed as such.

I also must point out I didn't say 'none' I said 'not many'. There is a small amount of demand, and it is small whatever you think.

It is rather odd that you give people enough credit to compare Be and O2 in terms of quality but not enough to have realised Be existed beforehand. The statement regarding O2 gaining most of its' customers without shaping is rather stating the obvious given they only began shaping in the past few weeks.

You seem to be under the impression that all these loads of people who would apparently be really interested in these high quality, high cost services are incapable of researching their options and don't see any form of advertising other than TV.

Most people simply don't care which is why BT and TalkTalk clean up. If they had any interest in better services they would, oh I don't know, say go to one of the tons of websites around. This is the really ridiculous part of your statement, you think that all this pent up demand for services is there yet all these presumably power users who want better performance and are so willing to pay for it are incapable of entering a string in Google or going to Samknows / ThinkBroadband / Broadband Choices to find a better provider so just stay with their BT or TalkTalk service.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=best+uk+Isp

Click the top result, ISPReview, click Top 10 (http://www.ispreview.co.uk/review/top10.php). Simples.

[qasdfdsaq]

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1760591/uk-shrugs-broadband-speeds


NEARLY HALF OF all UK broadband users couldn't care less about their connection speeds as long as they work.
[..]
Only 14 per cent said they were interested in faster connection speeds.

Food for thought. Or discussion. Or flaming.

[beasty54]

As you haven't had a letter how can you state what would be in it?

I have had a letter, its the reason i'm not overly impressed with the situation.

[Chrysalis]

You did note the Samuel L Jackson 'Mother of all broadband' adverts Virgin ran? I'd say television advertising of 50Mbit from a major Hollywood star along with all the coverage as the fastest broadband in the UK is pretty conclusive. The 50Mbps sold virtually nothing until the price was dropped. Even now its' pretty small as a % of customer base - we'll get exact numbers later.


Be advertised like lunatics in London and managed less than 40k customers here before O2 Broadband existed. Their LLU coverage within London was virtually 100%. Be has always been the higher quality version of O2 - the speeds advertised at the peak end are higher and it is marketed as such.

I also must point out I didn't say 'none' I said 'not many'. There is a small amount of demand, and it is small whatever you think.

It is rather odd that you give people enough credit to compare Be and O2 in terms of quality but not enough to have realised Be existed beforehand. The statement regarding O2 gaining most of its' customers without shaping is rather stating the obvious given they only began shaping in the past few weeks.

You seem to be under the impression that all these loads of people who would apparently be really interested in these high quality, high cost services are incapable of researching their options and don't see any form of advertising other than TV.

Most people simply don't care which is why BT and TalkTalk clean up. If they had any interest in better services they would, oh I don't know, say go to one of the tons of websites around. This is the really ridiculous part of your statement, you think that all this pent up demand for services is there yet all these presumably power users who want better performance and are so willing to pay for it are incapable of entering a string in Google or going to Samknows / ThinkBroadband / Broadband Choices to find a better provider so just stay with their BT or TalkTalk service.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=best+uk+Isp

Click the top result, ISPReview, click Top 10 (http://www.ispreview.co.uk/review/top10.php). Simples.

people dont care because they have not been educated. They are given tv adverts that claim BT is faster than the competition.

advertising on the tube etc. is nothing compared to tv. BE need to sack their marketing department for failing to realise london is only part of the uk.

I give you the 50mbit VM tv advert however that advert I expect was dumbed down and probably didnt say any technical advantages such as the following?

1 - VM doesnt detoriate on line length
2 - not STM'd. (probably didnt want to say it as makes the cheaper products look bad).
3 - using new docsis3 to avoid docsis 1.1 congestion.

I expect was just a dumbed down advert saying fastest internet in uk or something.

[qasdfdsaq]

1 - VM doesnt detoriate on line length
2 - not STM'd. (probably didnt want to say it as makes the cheaper products look bad).
3 - using new docsis3 to avoid docsis 1.1 congestion.

I expect was just a dumbed down advert saying fastest internet in uk or something.

1) Yes it does. Ironically it deteriorates if your line is too short and if your line is too long. They just don't admit it and keep charging you the same and claiming problems never exist.

2) I don't know of many other providers that use STM at all, on any of their products. Most use shaping - but VM are doing that now too.

3) BT use fibre to avoid any DOCSIS congestion. Another artificial layer of congestion that's only found on VM's network is not an advantage.

[Hugh]

Re 2 -

BT (http://bt.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/10495/~/bt-broadband-fair-usage-policy) 4. What is BT's Traffic Management Policy?

BT continuously monitors network performance and reduces the speed available to very heavy users (typically less than 1 per cent of all customers) during a given month to ensure that the service received by other customers is not impacted through extremely heavy usage by a minority of people.

Customers who are classified as very heavy users will experience significantly reduced speed at peak times (typically 5pm-midnight every day but these times may change depending on the demand on the network) for a period of 30 days, or for as long as very heavy use continues. This applies to customers on all Options.

BT Total Broadband Option 3 and BT Infinity Option 2 allow unlimited downloads and uploads within the monthly rental price, so customers on these products will not be charged for over-use. However, this does not preclude BT from reducing your speed if you are a heavy user in order to protect the experience for the rest of our customers.

[Chrysalis]

1) Yes it does. Ironically it deteriorates if your line is too short and if your line is too long. They just don't admit it and keep charging you the same and claiming problems never exist.

2) I don't know of many other providers that use STM at all, on any of their products. Most use shaping - but VM are doing that now too.

3) BT use fibre to avoid any DOCSIS congestion. Another artificial layer of congestion that's only found on VM's network is not an advantage.

I am talking about at the time of the advert.

#3 was advantage over lower VM products doscis3 over doscsis 1.1.

[nutellajunkie]

I download between 300 and 500gb a month and have never had a phone call, email, or letter in the past so i'm quite confused really.

better watch man, your account will be on the watch list now for saying that here!

:dunce:

[Sirius]

better watch man, your account will be on the watch list now for saying that here!

:dunce:

Strange because i have said on many occasions on this forum that i have done over a terabyte in a month and i have not been watched ??

.

[Chris]

better watch man, your account will be on the watch list now for saying that here!

:dunce:

That would be some trick if VM could pull it off - seeing as they have no access to any user account details on this forum. ;)

[General Maximus]

better watch man, your account will be on the watch list now for saying that here!

:dunce:

yeah well that would just be a joke. They don't pay any attention to anything anyone says on this forum (constructive feedback and opporuntities to improve service) but as soon as someone says they are downloading a lot then they are all over it :LOL:

[psyfur]

I've just been catching up on the updated STM and shaping of p2p and usenet, Ive been away for 3 weeks in Bali and all hell breaks lose.

Just to confirm, where do these letters get sent? Is the email sent to the VM account email address (I have never used mine and dont know the address)

I ever download after 9pm and stop by 9am, I dont get STM, but the FUP might have an issue with me. I would say I download 300 - 400 gigs a month

[pip08456]

I've just been catching up on the updated STM and shaping of p2p and usenet, Ive been away for 3 weeks in Bali and all hell breaks lose.

Just to confirm, where do these letters get sent? Is the email sent to the VM account email address (I have never used mine and dont know the address)

I ever download after 9pm and stop by 9am, I dont get STM, but the FUP might have an issue with me. I would say I download 300 - 400 gigs a month

The letters normally come through your letterbox. They aren't emails.

As they now have traffic shaping they should be a thing of the past.

File sharing

We moderate the total volume of file sharing traffic on our network between 5pm and midnight on weekdays and midday and midnight on weekends. This policy is restricted to Peer to Peer ("P2P") applications and Newsgroups (which are commonly used to distribute large amounts of data)

This policy does not impact any applications other than Peer to Peer and Newsgroups, so things like watching iPlayer, online gaming, making calls via Skype, downloading music tracks from iTunes or streaming them from Spotify and sending an email or normal browsing are unaffected.

It's important to remember that these traffic management policies only apply at peak times when speeds are most likely to be affected by people using more than their fair share. Outside of peak times we do not manage traffic.

[buba3d]

its funny how they didn't think about the online gaming side of things when they implemented this.

[Wild Oscar]

I got both an email and a letter through the post .. both dated 26/10 ..

[beasty54]

I got both an email and a letter through the post .. both dated 26/10 ..

I'm expecting another one soon, i accidently left my downloads going the other day and hit almost 200gb in one day.. oops, i have now put massive restrictions on my network between 9am and 9pm just to be on the safe side. I'm still slightly ****ed off though because once 100mb becomes available in my area i'd like to upgrade, BUT, i'm not willing to do so if i'm likely to get warnings for downloading at 12MB/s for more than 2 minutes at 11am :mad:

[HSp8]

I got one of these letters yesterday (first one), dated 26 November.

I tend to download from newsgroups at about 5am (using Sickbeard) but perhaps I've been doing more in the daytime recently now I use MyNZB at work.

I guess there's no point ringing them up as they won't tell me what the acceptable limits are

I've just scheduled my SABNzbd to only download between 10pm and 9am

ho hum

[xx.Morph.xx]

Just received my second one of these, now since the 1st one I have set a scheduler between 9am to 9pm to limit my usage to 5Mb download & 1Mb upload.
That is 10% & 20% utilization respectively of the 50Mb service I pay for & as far as VM are concerned this is still to high:confused:.
What the hell is acceptable use then, 1% of what you pay for?
The second letter threatens suspension of service or disconnection, possibly without further notice.
I thought with traffic shaping & throttling these letters would be a thing of the past.
Is there any point arguing with them on the phone or will it just be another muppet with a script?:mad:

[Ignitionnet]

If you're running at 5Mb and 1Mb respectively every day between 9am and 9pm it could well be considered too high.

[General Maximus]

yeah but that is only 600k/sec all night, if VM cant afford that speed when everyone is asleep then something is seriously wrong. I have a feeling it is more to do with the total volume you are downloading over a monthly period rather than you speed though and if this is the case, they should make it clear to peeps that whilst speed is "unlimited" or whatever, they do not expect you download over 500gb/month or something.

[Ignitionnet]

You missed the 9am-9pm bit I'm guessing General?

[Chrysalis]

Just received my second one of these, now since the 1st one I have set a scheduler between 9am to 9pm to limit my usage to 5Mb download & 1Mb upload.
That is 10% & 20% utilization respectively of the 50Mb service I pay for & as far as VM are concerned this is still to high:confused:.
What the hell is acceptable use then, 1% of what you pay for?
The second letter threatens suspension of service or disconnection, possibly without further notice.
I thought with traffic shaping & throttling these letters would be a thing of the past.
Is there any point arguing with them on the phone or will it just be another muppet with a script?:mad:

VM are really pushing their own resources.

That 20% of your resource is still using 1/18th of the shared port capacity which is shared across 100+ users. So if its constant over that time period I can see why it got flagged.

[General Maximus]

bum, my bad, i was reading so quick that I though he said 9pm-9am which is why i thought their shouldnt be a problem :)

[qasdfdsaq]

10% is still way too high for a contended service like VMs. VM have been in the past quoted to have a contention ratio of 30:1, but given most other ISPs have moved to the 50:1 to 100:1 range I doubt VM are maintaining 30:1 in all areas.

Even at 30:1 there's only enough bandwidth for you to use 3% the capacity of your connection, anything more than 3% is above average, and a constant 10% I would certainly see as excessive.

Presumably these excessive usage letters are going out in areas where contention is higher and capacity cannot cope, and as "acceptable usage" is already defined on VM's website as usage that does not have a negative impact on other users, any kind of usage in a 100% utilized area would technically have an impact. But that's really their call. Granted, there's a lot of debate on here already about VM's opaque usage limits. From what I gather it is mainly based on amount downloaded per month between certain hours, rather than a speed cap. I recall one VM statement saying something along the lines of 350GB per month between 5pm and 9pm or something.

All in all I think your expectations of the service are too high. 30:1 contention (i.e. allocating each user 3% of the bandwidth they're sold) is actually pretty good these days, especially on 50mb, when other ISPs are allocating bandwidth on the order of a few hundred kilobits per second per user not megabits.

[pip08456]

I recall one VM statement saying something along the lines of 350GB per month between 5pm and 9pm or something.



Would this be the statement you are referring to?

At present, where we have had feedback from customers that they are seeing slow speeds, or we have detected abnormally high utilisation, on average we contact customers who are transferring over 350GB over 28 days during the 9am-9pm period. As mentioned, we don't count usage between 9pm and 9am as the network is less busy at this time. As such, the vast majority of normal every day customers (over 99.9%) will never hear from the Customer Internet Security Team with a letter about detrimental use.

[qasdfdsaq]

That'd be the one :)

At least they've put out a vague "guidance" figure, better than nothing at all, and higher than all the other ISP FUP's I know of (excepting the ones with no FUP usage cap)

[xx.Morph.xx]

Thanks for the info guys, looks like I'll have to re think my download & streaming strategy. Not easy as I work permanent nights & am only at home during VM's "peak hours".:(

Strange that in 7 years of BT broadband usage 24/7 I never received 1 letter or email even though one of their advisors classed me as a very heavy user :confused:

[Ignitionnet]

Replacing this (http://www.utorrent.com/) with this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/) will help with usage for sure.

[qasdfdsaq]

Replacing this (http://www.utorrent.com/) with this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/) will help with usage for sure.
Hahaha, indeed. Only problem is, this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/) won't do same-day delivery :bigcry:

---------- Post added at 14:57 ---------- Previous post was at 14:56 ----------

Thanks for the info guys, looks like I'll have to re think my download & streaming strategy. Not easy as I work permanent nights & am only at home during VM's "peak hours".:(

Strange that in 7 years of BT broadband usage 24/7 I never received 1 letter or email even though one of their advisors classed me as a very heavy user :confused:
BT don't send you letters, they cut your speed down automatically without telling you.

[Ignitionnet]

Unlimited next day (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200182130) works for me :)

[cook1984]

I don't use VM for email. I don't even know what the address is or what the password might be. I can't find any way of telling them I have a different address. I could be getting these emails and never know!

As far as I am concerned unless VM specifically state exactly what the limits are, i.e. how much you have to download and at what times to fit into their "top 0.1%" they can't expect users to do much about it. Considering they don't actually offer an unlimited service at all and some of us can't get ADSL it isn't like we even have much choice. I'd pay a bit more for an unlimited service (or a bit less if I could get Sky) but there isn't one!

Broadband is a basic service these days, as important as water or electricity. I couldn't function without it, couldn't do my job properly, would be cut off from my friends and unable to get good deals on services. Therefore I am forced to use VM and so they should be regulated like other essential utilities are.

Like most people I am at work during the day and asleep at night, so want to use my connection during peek times. I have noticed that iPlayer and YouTube have major problems at peek times, although my phone's connection via Vodaphone seems to cope without problems!

[Ignitionnet]

I don't use VM for email. I don't even know what the address is or what the password might be. I can't find any way of telling them I have a different address. I could be getting these emails and never know!

As far as I am concerned unless VM specifically state exactly what the limits are, i.e. how much you have to download and at what times to fit into their "top 0.1%" they can't expect users to do much about it. Considering they don't actually offer an unlimited service at all and some of us can't get ADSL it isn't like we even have much choice. I'd pay a bit more for an unlimited service (or a bit less if I could get Sky) but there isn't one!

Broadband is a basic service these days, as important as water or electricity. I couldn't function without it, couldn't do my job properly, would be cut off from my friends and unable to get good deals on services. Therefore I am forced to use VM and so they should be regulated like other essential utilities are.

Like most people I am at work during the day and asleep at night, so want to use my connection during peek times. I have noticed that iPlayer and YouTube have major problems at peek times, although my phone's connection via Vodaphone seems to cope without problems!

OK let's regulate them and every other provider as utilities. No shaping, no capping. The simple and indeed only response back would be for them to charge us by the Gigabyte same as electricity, gas and for an increasingly large number water do.

Sound good, especially for the 'power' user?

Didn't think so. Would be ideal for granny, for the torrent / Giganews head not so much.

[Chrysalis]

ignition so as far as you concerned its either, unlimited with shaping, congestion, capping etc.

or pay per gig.

nothing in between? one extreme or the other.

no scope for higher base price?
no scope for fixed usage cap?

[Ignitionnet]

I didn't say that, I said that if we regulated them that would have to be the inevitable result.

I despise the idea anyway, it's authoritarian and unnecessary. Electricity, gas and water are required to live and to live a modern life, Usenet and torrents aren't.

[Chrysalis]

for some the internet is indeed as important as electric to be fair.

However that is basic internet access, for the purpose I mention a 512kbit connection would be enough. Of course if connections dont increase in capability then things like what we see in back to the future 2 where they speak to each on full screens will only be a dream as the bandwidth isnt there to support mass usage of such type of usage.

[Ignitionnet]

I didn't say it wasn't important to people, I was careful to mention that Usenet and torrents aren't essential.

Most functions of basic internet access can be done with a mobile connection, pretty widely available.

There is no need to mandate a minimum standard of access in terms of shaping and bitcaps, and certainly not to require such access to be unlimited or unmanaged.

[Chrysalis]

Personally I would love to see protocol shaping outlawed (americans did that before vs comcast?), the only isp side shaping I would like to see is one that is maybe done on the user's request. We clearly have isp's abusing the situation in multiple ways.

1 - saying only X and Y is shaped when in fact they do a default shape with a whitelist which means logically more than X and Y will be shaped, or even knowingly shaping more than X and Y but keeping quiet about it.
2 - shaping down to ridicolous speeds like isdn speeds.
3 - shaping far too much stuff so more is actually shaped than unshaped.

VM is guilty of #1, multiple isp's are guilty of #2, plusnet is guilty of #3 having sites like bbc.co.uk affected by it due to akamai shaping.

On unlimited all I want doing with that is someone to say no to selling unlimited services that are not unlimited, its a very simple term that has been twisted every way by isp's. Its very possible to sell a unlimited consumer service, ie. they dont need to provision enough bandwidth for everyone to download 24/7, but they do need to provision enough so those that choose to do so can do that, any isp who is not prepared to support that should not be selling it.

Bitcaps is a more complex issue and I see it as lower priority than the other 2 issues. However the guy you replied to is very right in stating it is reasonable to expect iplayer and youtube to work during peak.

[cook1984]

OK let's regulate them and every other provider as utilities. No shaping, no capping. The simple and indeed only response back would be for them to charge us by the Gigabyte same as electricity, gas and for an increasingly large number water do.

I'd look at it more like transport. We need it and providing knackered old roads that only let you do 20MPH isn't an acceptable solution. A good high speed and congestion free network of roads is a massive economic booster. Some kind of modern network is an absolute necessity for us.

As usual though we are failing to deliver one. Other countries somehow manage to have trains that run on time and reasonably usable roads, all without paying quite as much tax. There are some private motorways you have to pay for in places, but some countries just see them as vital infrastructure and the state builds them.

Or look at it another way. 1000/1000Mb fibre optic connections for £30/month in Japan and Korea. No limits. Well, okay, on the cheaper 100/100 packages NTT does impose a 30GB limit. That is 30GB/DAY upload mind you, downloads are unlimited. So it is possible, and I'm sure the apologists will get in with lots of reasons why we can't have anything like that, but the bottom line is there just isn't the political will.

[Ignitionnet]

I'd look at it more like transport. We need it and providing knackered old roads that only let you do 20MPH isn't an acceptable solution. A good high speed and congestion free network of roads is a massive economic booster. Some kind of modern network is an absolute necessity for us.

As usual though we are failing to deliver one. Other countries somehow manage to have trains that run on time and reasonably usable roads, all without paying quite as much tax. There are some private motorways you have to pay for in places, but some countries just see them as vital infrastructure and the state builds them.

Or look at it another way. 1000/1000Mb fibre optic connections for £30/month in Japan and Korea. No limits. Well, okay, on the cheaper 100/100 packages NTT does impose a 30GB limit. That is 30GB/DAY upload mind you, downloads are unlimited. So it is possible, and I'm sure the apologists will get in with lots of reasons why we can't have anything like that, but the bottom line is there just isn't the political will.

Absolutely correct, there are other bigger things to deal with and many national and regional issues to deal with.

Roads being of a good performance gives a clear economic benefit, unshaped and uncapped Internet services do not at this time. There is neither a business case nor a public interest case for massive investment in national fibre optics to permit higher speed services without transfer limits. The main use for them right now is copyright infringement.

As another thought the speeds in Japan and Korea are high - locally. Leave their country and go to the rest of the world and performance drops like a brick. We however draw content locally and from Europe and North America and are used to good performance there.

It's tricky, but you're absolutely right that the political will isn't there, nor is the commercial desire, nor indeed any pressing need.

[Chrysalis]

we should also remember tho there is huge variance of whats already available.

some areas eg. have decent quality 40mbit +services available and as such feel the country has progressed well and there is no need for further investment.

other areas (not necessarily low populated in middle of farmland) have 1 10th of that whether its due to a over congested cable network or long poor adsl line and as such those areas are desperate for broadband investment. Not to mention not spots.

Its the usual story tho, investment goes where it least needed as it usually provides the biggest boost for least cost, so in VM's case upgrading the easy areas for good PR boost on 100mbit and upload speeds and BT spending where its short fibre runs to cabinets for FTTC.

[Ignitionnet]

BT spending where its short fibre runs to cabinets for FTTC.

The fibre run length isn't the issue, BT aren't purposely ignoring long loops, indeed the way the network is being build many fibre runs are much longer than any exchange line as they don't go to the nearest exchange but a different one.